Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Why should the pharmacy student numbers be managed differently to other health professions?

So, despite all the evidence painstakingly compiled by the pharmacy profession, ably led by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), our justified expectations of a cap on pharmacy student numbers are dismissed in a few brief sentences by Greg Clark, Minister for Universities, Science and Cities.

According to Mr Clark, a cap is not necessary for pharmacy students because it is government policy to remove student number controls wherever possible to give students greater choice and encourage universities to offer better quality courses”. What utter rubbish. Other health professions (medicine, dentistry) benefit from student number controls, why should pharmacy be different?

In his astonishingly brief letter, Mr Clark states that pharmacy students “can and should benefit from this reform” but, other than political dogma, adduces no evidence whatsoever in support of his assertion. Neither does he explain how the five-year integrated pharmacy training — that all agree is needed to produce fit-for-purpose future pharmacists — can possibly be achieved without matching student numbers to places related to the demand for pharmacists.

I urge fellow pharmacists who oppose Mr Clark’s decision to let him know how you feel. His Twitter handle is @gregclarkmp.

The RPS has been working on this issue for years. We had all the relevant authorities on-side and the consultation that ran in 2013 revealed overwhelming support for controls. In fact, only the vested interests of the schools of pharmacy demurred and they are conflicted on this issue.

I have been agitating for a much wider role for pharmacy in the NHS under the campaign theme “how pharmacy can save the NHS”. On 19 October 2014, the RPS had incredible success in the media arguing for a nationally commissioned, pharmacy-based common ailments service. Significantly, the RPS lined up the medical profession and others behind the campaign.

The RPS also wants pharmacists to have closer links with GPs, access to patients’ electronic health records, increased input to care homes and an increased role in patients with long-term conditions. All these, of course, rely on pharmacists having the right education and skills. We need to attract the very best students to our profession, reward them decently on qualification and not treat them as “expendable cannon fodder”. It seems Mr Clark is woefully ignorant of all these issues and it is down to us to disabuse him. Perhaps the RPS needs to add one more strand to its campaign.

Meanwhile, I am incandescent.


Graham Phillips

St Albans, Hertfordshire

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal URI: 20066898

Readers' comments (3)

  • Very well put. Some may say it's a shame intake controls weren't taken up by Mr.Clark, but like yourself I feel all pharmacists and students alike should view this as a plain injustice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • it is all too obvious because of the popularity of pharmacy and the potential profit universities can make that the evidence is not being looked at. Health professions should always be regulated by their respective societal bodies to ensure the sustainance and professional reputation are preserved. A situation were numbers are not controlled is tantamount to having devaluation of the profession by employers all round as presently seen in the uk and by wider definition the public at large. Numbers need and should be curbed to preserve the professions dignity to ensure high standards are met in terms of the quality produced of practitioners, standards of practice vis a vis renumeration work conditions etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Graham Phillips

    Colleagues: We are all furiously agreeing with one-another but THAT won't make a difference. We need to convince @gregclarkmp, especially pharmacists who work in his patch (Tunbridge Wells) But PLEASE if you plan to get in touch with him, work with the @rpharms and do so constructively. However angry we are, heaping abuse on him will be counter-productive. Instead lets get him to an exemplary community pharmacy on his patch. Offer him a photo-opportunity (MPs love that and there's an election coming). Show him all that we do and explain all that we COULD do with the right support... Thanks.. Graham

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.